The plaintiffs in the first Burger King class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s architectural barriers are discriminatory. The three-class members, Miguel Castaneda, Katherine Corbett, and Joseph Wellner, use wheelchairs and scooters. They sued Burger King Corporation, seeking injunctions and compensation under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act. The settlement will also award each damages claimant up to $4,000 in statutory damages.
A visually-impaired woman is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against Burger King, claiming that the restaurant violates the privacy of its customers.
The lawsuit claims that Burger King’s website is not fully accessible and usable by people with disabilities. This breach of service violates her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A website is a useful tool for everyone, and the denial of full access to consumers is a violation of her civil rights.
Another plaintiff in a Burger King class-action lawsuit, Merard, says Burger King violates the privacy of its customers by printing the last four digits of their credit cards. This puts customers at risk of identity theft since the restaurant was contractually forbidden from doing so. The plaintiff alleges that the restaurant was aware of Merard’s condition when interviewing her for the job. Fortunately, she won the case and is now pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Burger Kings.
The lawsuit was filed in 2008 but was settled after several years of legal proceedings.
In 2011, a Florida court agreed to settle the suit for $10 million. The proposed class is made up of customers who paid for their food using their credit cards. The federal court ruling is still pending. The lawsuit is based on the anti-poaching provision in Burger King’s franchise agreements. It claims that Burger King has knowingly violated the FACTA and placed consumers at risk of identity theft.
According to the Burger King class-action lawsuit, the fast-food chain violates the privacy of its customers by printing the last four digits of their credit cards. It also places them at risk of identity theft by printing the last four digits of a customer’s credit card. During the same period, Burger King reopened its Edmonton location and expanded its operations to Alberta. In addition, the plaintiff’s attorneys will seek damages for the other victims in the suit.
The Burger King class-action lawsuit, filed by Sciortino, claims that the company violates the privacy of its customers by printing the last four digits of their credit cards.
The plaintiffs also claim that the practice places them at risk of identity theft because the company did not provide the necessary documentation. The settlement was reached after extensive legal proceedings and was approved by a judge in California. In 2012, the plaintiffs’ lawyers had argued that the company violated the FACTA by printing the last four digits of the credit card.
A visually impaired woman filed a Burger King class-action lawsuit against the chain. She claims that the company violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its website accessible for her disabled son. Further, she alleges that the restaurant’s inaccessible website made her family vulnerable to identity theft. She also seeks damages on behalf of all other hourly workers at Tri-City Foods.
The McDonald’s franchisee filed a Burger King class-action lawsuit against the fast-food company.
She claims that the company failed to pay her for the hours she worked. The franchisee argues that Tri-City Foods has a policy of not paying workers who work more than 35 hours. It is also not necessary to hire a third party to file a Burger King class-action lawsuit. It is worth reading the details of the suit.
The plaintiffs in the Burger King franchise class action lawsuit are Tri City Foods, the second-largest Burger King franchisee in the country. Diana Sciortino is a restaurant worker from Illinois who worked at two different Burger KING locations from August 2016 to February 2020. She claims that she was not paid overtime because her job required her to work more than 40 hours a week. This is illegal under Illinois law and her wages should be higher.
